It was big news when court documents were unsealed revealing a whistleblower lawsuit accusing drug giant Merck of fraud and lying about the true efficacy of its mumps vaccine. Just about every media, large and small, picked it up and the world was abuzz about the hundreds of millions of dollars the lawsuit claimed Merck had defrauded from the US government. The Wall Street Journal published the story in the form of a Dow Jones news release written by Jon Kamp on June 22, 2012, and links to the story began popping up on social media like Facebook. Then, suddenly, the link to the story no longer worked, and if anyone clicked on the link in social media, it would show up “page not found.” Apparently the story had been pulled, and when search engines and Internet archives wouldn't even show it, it looked as if it had never been published on the Journal's site at all. It was erased nearly clean – except for a small stock-watcher's website, 4Traders.com, which did a good job of erasing it from its main site but didn't catch it in the cache.

The question is, why did the WSJ pull the story and try to erase as if it never existed when there were actual court documents for evidence? Is it possible that an event that occurred on June 25 - three days after the story broke - could have influenced the story being pulled? On that day, the Wall Street Journal’s “elite” network of CFOs from the world’s top corporations met at the WSJ. Merck is on that executive council. My team attempted to connect with the WSJ on this issue, but as of this time, we have not yet received an answer as to why this article was pulled.

Merck accused of falsifying efficacy studies and lying about effectiveness of mumps vaccine

Merck has actually been slapped with two class-action lawsuits over their mumps vaccine (which is part of the trivalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine). The first, which was initially filed in 2010, was unsealed late last month. Two former Merck virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, claim they witnessed first-hand the improper testing and falsification of data that was done to hide the fact that the vaccine has significantly declined in effectiveness.

By artificially inflating the efficacy, Merck was able to maintain its monopoly over the mumps vaccine market - and that is the main point of contention of the second class-action lawsuit, filed by Chatom Primary Care.

According to Courthouse News Service:

“Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is “far less effective” than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of “questionable efficacy,” flooding and monopolizing the market... Chatom says in its antitrust complaint that Merck falsely claims its mumps vaccine is 95 percent effective. That claim “deterred and excluded competing manufacturers” who would enter the risky and expensive vaccine market only if they believed they could craft a better product...

Merck is the only manufacturer licensed by the FDA to sell the mumps vaccine in United States, and if it could not show that the vaccine was 95 percent effective, it risked losing its lucrative monopoly...

That's why Merck found it critically important to keep claiming such a high efficacy rate, the complaint states. And, Chatom claims, that's why Merck went to great lengths, including “manipulating its test procedures and falsifying the test results,” to prop up the bogus figure, though it knew that the attenuated virus from which it created the vaccine had been altered over the years during the manufacturing process, and that the quality of the vaccine had degraded as a result.”

According to these two lawsuits, Merck began a sham testing program in the late 1990's to hide the declining efficacy of the vaccine. The objective of the fraudulent trials was to “report efficacy of 95 percent or higher regardless of the vaccine's true efficacy.” According to Krahling and Wlochowski’s complaint, they were threatened with jail were they to alert the FDA to the fraud being committed. The sham testing program was initially referred to as “Protocol 007,” the Chatom anti-trust claim states. Suzanne Humphries recently wrote an excellent summary for GreenMedInfo.com, explaining in layman's terms how the tests were manipulated.

Here’s a brief extract. For more, please refer to the original source article:

“For the new testing method, the children’s blood was tested for its ability to neutralize the virus using the vaccine strain virus, instead of the wild type strain that is much more infective, and the one that your children would most likely catch... But still it was not 95% effective. In order to make the blood pass the test, antibodies from rabbits was added. The addition of rabbit antibody increased the efficacy to 100%. But that was not the end, because the test has to be done on pre-vaccine blood and post-vaccine blood.

Just the addition of rabbit antibody made the pre-vaccine blood go from 10% positive to 80% positive and that was such an obvious sign of foul play that yet another manipulation had to be made.

The desired end result is to have very low pre-vaccine antibody and 95% or more post-vaccine efficacy as measured by antibody neutralization. So, yet one more change in procedure was made: The pre-vaccine tests were all redone... According to the Merck scientists, they did this by fabricating the “plaque” counts on the pre-vaccine blood samples, counting plaques that were not there. What this allowed was a mathematical dilution of the pre-vaccine positive blood counts.”

This is a perfect example of how medical research can be manipulated to achieve desired results, and why it may be wise to question vaccine makers’ study results. Clearly, there needs to be a truly independent review in the mix... As reported by the Courthouse News Service: “Chatom claims that the falsification of test results occurred” with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck's senior management.”

While I do not advocate indiscriminately abstaining from all vaccines, I strongly encourage you to exercise a major dose of due diligence as vaccines can cause serious reactions that can have devastating consequences. I believe in informed consent and the freedom to choose. There can be little doubt anymore that drug companies are in it for the profits, and virtually no price seems too high for them when it comes to protecting their profit-making.

When words and deeds don’t match, which is closer to the truth?

Forbes quoted a Merck spokesman saying:“Nothing is more important to Merck than the safety and effectiveness of our vaccines and medicines and the people who use them.”.

Really? Then WHY did they heavily promote Vioxx and keep it on the market until it had killed more than 60,000 people? I warned my readers that this pain killer might be a real killer for some people, five years before Merck made its $30 billion recall! Five years they let it go, and they undoubtedly would have kept it on the market longer had the lethal dangers not become so shockingly obvious to other scientists.

After Vioxx came the HPV vaccine Gardasil – perhaps the most unnecessary vaccine ever created, and likely one of the most dangerous to boot. Merck claims their main concern is safety, yet ever since Gardasil's approval in 2006, reports of life-altering side effects and sudden deaths of otherwise healthy teenagers have stacked up into the thousands, and Merck has steadfastly refused to acknowledge or address these health risks.

Gardasil appears to have one of the highest risk-to-benefit ratios of any vaccine on the market, and India even halted Merck's post-licensing trials of the vaccine after four young participants died, yet Merck has the gall to claim that nothing is more important to them than safety. Give me a break... Actions speak louder than words, and Merck has a long paper trail of litigation highlighting the company's questionable ethics.

More censored news: MMR vaccine caused autism, Italian court rules

These two lawsuits couldn't come at a more precarious time for Merck, as the Italian Health Ministry recently conceded the MMR vaccine caused autism in a now nine-year old boy. As a result, a court in Rimini, Italy has awarded the family a 15-year annuity totaling 174,000 Euros (just under $220,000), plus reimbursement for court costs, ruling that the boy “has been damaged by irreversible complications due to vaccination (prophylaxis trivalent MMR).”

According to TheDaily Mail, a British paper:

“Judge Lucio Ardigo, awarding compensation to the family... said it was 'conclusively established' that Valentino had suffered from an 'autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay' and his illness, as Dr Barboni stated, was linked to receiving the jab. Lawyer Mr Ventaloro explained yesterday: 'This is very significant for Britain which uses, and has used, an MMR vaccine with the same components as the one given to Valentino.

'It is wrong for governments and their health authorities to exert strong pressure on parents to take children for the MMR jab while ignoring that this vaccine can cause autism and linked conditions.'

Claudio Simion, a leading member of the lobby group Association for Freedom of Choice in Vaccination (Comilva), adds: 'The Rimini judgment is vitally important for children everywhere. The numbers with autism are growing. It is a terrible thing that the authorities turn a blind eye to the connection between the MMR vaccination and this illness.'”

This vaccine-news story was not picked up by a single US media outlet when it happened! Why? Could it be because the US government, which is brimming with paid-off industry shills, is hell-bent on protecting the vaccination program? Not because it's a marvelous panacea that promotes optimal health and longevity and can be defended with raw facts and first-class science, but because it's a major profit center, both for the vaccine makers and for those whose pockets are lined with Big Pharma bribes.

US Varicella Vaccination Program also found to be a total flop

In related news, a recent review of the varicella (chickenpox) vaccination program in the US concluded that the vaccine efficacy had declined well below 80 percent by of 2002. Furthermore, the varicella vaccine has:

-Not proven to be cost-effective

-Increased the incidence of shingles

-Failed to provide long-term protection from the disease it targets - chicken pox - and

-Is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in the general population before the vaccine

The damning news was published in May in the journal Vaccine, and lends additional support to the idea that the vaccine program is based on financial interests, not health, as serious side effects are routinely ignored and ineffective and/or harmful products continue to be used.

The information was gathered from a review of chicken pox and shingles statistics in the years since the vaccine was introduced. The researchers point out that although statistics showed shingles rates increased after the vaccine, “CDC authorities still claimed” that no increase had occurred. The authors also state that the CDC not only ignored the natural boost in immunity to the community that occurred with wild chickenpox, as opposed to the vaccine, but also ignored the “rare serious events following varicella vaccination” as well as the increasing rates of shingles among adults:

“In the prelicensure era, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as children) - these cases were usually benign and resulted in long-term immunity. Varicella vaccination is less effective than the natural immunity that existed in prevaccine communities. Universal varicella vaccination has not proven to be cost-effective as increased herpes zoster [shingles] morbidity has disproportionately offset cost savings associated with reductions in varicella disease. Universal varicella vaccination has failed to provide long-term protection from VZV disease.”

Get informed before you vaccinate yourself or your family

Stories such as these underscore the importance to take control of your own health, and that of your children. It's simply not wise to blindly depend on the information coming directly from the vaccine makers' PR departments, or from federal health officials and agencies that are mired in conflicts of interest with industry...

No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks of medical interventions and pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, and have the freedom to refuse if you conclude the benefits do not outweigh the risks for you or your child. Unfortunately, the business partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is too close and is getting out of hand. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use. We cannot allow that to continue.